Teacher stabbed to death at Leeds school

[jon0844]

I doubt the family will be attacked in revenge, but they can expect to be plastered all over the papers and Internet, if they haven't already.

 

[talltim]

It was out on social media on the day it happened! But yes, it's now 'official'.

Yes, his name, his brother's name, his parents' names, jobs, etc, Easily found the same day.

 

[bb21]

Between the cost of giving his family police protection and the cost of giving him a new identity when he's released in adulthood, I really don't agree with naming the child. He might be a dangerous screwed-up psychopathic child but he's still a child.

Do we know whether it has been confirmed as to the presence of (or lack of) a medical condition?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Do we know whether it has been confirmed as to the presence of (or lack of) a medical condition?

The psychiatrists didn't think he was of unsound mind (i.e. he wasn't delusional, etc). However the way he's reacted to a perceived slight with such violence, and shows absolutely no remorse for it, screams psychopath to my untrained eye.

You have to be a bit screwy to react like that IMO.

 

[WelshBluebird]

And unsurprisingly the DM are blaming video games :roll:

 

[swj99]

We as a society see the taking of another person's life as wrong. And it's alarming to come across someone who doesn't see it that way. Bottom line, he chose to do what he did. It wasn't a spur of the moment reaction to something, he planned it. So I blame him for what he did.

 

[Qwerty133]

The psychiatrists didn't think he was of unsound mind (i.e. he wasn't delusional, etc). However the way he's reacted to a perceived slight with such violence, and shows absolutely no remorse for it, screams psychopath to my untrained eye.

You have to be a bit screwy to react like that IMO.

He apparently used to self harm, so there must have been mental illness at some point. Would really like to know if CAMHS had had any involvement with the family at any point, and if not why not (young people with disabilites and medical issues often become depressed, so this along with self harm really should have caused them tonbecome involved).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And unsurprisingly the DM are blaming video games :roll:

Did they forget to mention the 'emo' music and haircut? :roll:

 

[Johnuk123]

He apparently used to self harm, so there must have been mental illness at some point.

The majority of self harmers are not mentally ill.

 

[Qwerty133]

The majority of self harmers are not mentally ill.

Becaus choosing to hurt yourself is a very normal decision made rationally :roll:

 

[Johnuk123]

Becaus choosing to hurt yourself is a very normal decision made rationally :roll:

No it's not normal, but as I said most people who do it are not mentally ill.


http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/self-harm.aspx

Does this mean I'm mentally ill ?
Probably not. However, you may be depressed, have personality difficulties, find it difficult to get on with other people or have problems with alcohol and/or drugs. You could still do with some help.

 

[talltim]

And depression isn't a mental illness?

 

[Tetchytyke]

No it's not normal, but as I said most people who do it are not mentally ill.

Depends how you define mental illness doesn't it.

Depression is a mental illness, I suspect the Royal College of Psychiatrists have phrased it like that to prevent people who self harm from thinking they're going to be locked up in Bethlem for the rest of eternity if they tell anyone.

 

[Qwerty133]

from selfharm.co.uk

The bottom line is that anything that causes you harm – even slight harm – which in some small way makes you feel better emotionally, can fall under the umbrella of self-harm.

Clearly anything that causes harm shouldn't make you feel better...

 

[Johnuk123]

And depression isn't a mental illness?

I never said it wasn't, I also never said that no self harmers are mentally ill but the majority aren't.

I was replying to a post that said you had to be mentally ill to self harm, and you absolutely don't have to be.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is the age of criminal responsibility in England ten years of age?

 

[Johnuk123]

Is the age of criminal responsibility in England ten years of age?

Yes it is.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I doubt the family will be attacked in revenge, but they can expect to be plastered all over the papers and Internet, if they haven't already.

I concur. I think the Judge has made a mistake in giving out the boys name. I really don't see what good has been achieved by doing this.

 

[Johnuk123]

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....dge-explains-naming-of-will-cornick-1-6935972

The High Court judge who ruled that Will Cornick could be named after the 16-year-old admitted the murder of teacher Ann Maguire has said that lifting his anonymity will have a “a clear deterrent effect” and will also aid debates about the wider issues involved.

Reading the reasons why he gave out the killers name seem perfectly right.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A "deterrent effect"? Plastering his name all over the world, making him more (in)famous than he could have ever dreamed of, is a deterrent? On what planet?

We've seen in the States where the high school gunmen want their name in lights, they want people to know who they are. Naming them just doesn't put them off, it encourages them. I don't see how it's different here.

 

[meridian2]

Why must people on here see that the only recourse in revealing the guy's name is violent retribution? We don't live in an 'eye for an eye' society and if the judge sees that releasing his name to the public is the right choice then that should be respected.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

A "deterrent effect"? Plastering his name all over the world, making him more (in)famous than he could have ever dreamed of, is a deterrent? On what planet?

We've seen in the States where the high school gunmen want their name in lights, they want people to know who they are. Naming them just doesn't put them off, it encourages them. I don't see how it's different here.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Flamingo]

At the end of the day, he carried out a pre-meditated attack on a victim that was defenceless, had planned to kill several others, and has showed no remorse.

He is old enough to do that, he does not deserve the protection of anonymity - or everybody who commits a serious crime does.

I think he will end up in a secure hospital very soon (if he is not already in one), as he is obviously somebody who needs treatment. But an "insane" verdict would have potentially meant he could be released in a year or two, as soon as he is deemed to have "recovered". This way a deterrent is in place, and society at large is protected from him, with the added protection that when he is released on licence as a relatively young man he will not be able to drop out of sight as easily as he might have.

 

[Antman]

A "deterrent effect"? Plastering his name all over the world, making him more (in)famous than he could have ever dreamed of, is a deterrent? On what planet?

We've seen in the States where the high school gunmen want their name in lights, they want people to know who they are. Naming them just doesn't put them off, it encourages them. I don't see how it's different here.

I hardly think his name has been plastered all over the world, it's just a name and means nothing to most people. He will obviously have limited access to what is going on in the outside world anyway so I don't think it makes one iota of difference. In todays age of social media it would have been impossible to keep his name secret anyway.

 

[swj99]

Maybe the judge just realized it would be far easier to lift the ban on identifying him, and save the hassle of prosecuting loads of people who would have inevitably mentioned his name all over the internet anyway.

 

[fowler9]

I personally don't think that telling everyone his name acts as a deterrent. I am in no position to judge if he was suffering from a mental illness or was insane but I am guessing he wasn't "Of sound mind" when he killed someone. How does telling everyone his name protect anyone or deter anyone else not of sound mind from doing the same? It may put his family at greater risk from people outside the area who don't know them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe the judge just realized it would be far easier to lift the ban on identifying him, and save the hassle of prosecuting loads of people who would have inevitably mentioned his name all over the internet anyway.

I agree with that though, which is a shame.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why must people on here see that the only recourse in revealing the guy's name is violent retribution? We don't live in an 'eye for an eye' society and if the judge sees that releasing his name to the public is the right choice then that should be respected.

I personally think that it is naive to think we don't live in an eye for an eye society and that whatever a judge does was in your best interest. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, its just my opinion.